Foul bevaviour at previously fantastic cofe school - teachers' advice welcome

[sparklersmum]

My child attends a cofe secondary school with an incredibly good reputation. Now in Y8. The year seems to have a lot of dysfunctional and disruptive personalities. There are up to half a dozen girls who are loud, insolent, bullies. They have interrupted lessons, they have sworn at teaching staff. There were several complaints last year and this resulted in a bit of a shuffle and things seemed to get better for a few weeks this term.

However, things have gone from bad to worse. One girl (age 12) went missing last summer, all over the local papers, and was with her 16 year old boyfriend - swanned back into school with a grin. This year there has been a theft (admitted) from another trouble maker and the stolen item was sold on. There doesn't even seem to have been as much as a fixed term exclusion for anyone. There was then retaliation from two trouble makers and no further action from the school. So far the school is content to let these girls disrupt lessons, swear at teachers and spoil an otherwise very nice environment as well as to sanction their behaviour and give criminality and immorality the seal of approval.

I don't think the school's response has been adequate. I don't think it reinforces the family values of the majority and I don't think it is doing anything to protect the school's reputation.

I would have thought theft following the behaviour in the summer should be taken seriously; combined with the disruption and the unrest that has been caused. I also think stonger measures were required than getting the local policeman to come along and have a chat to all the girls about personal safety.

Would be interested in the views of teachers about this. I am stunned that no significant action has been taken at what was until very recently a school with an exceptional reputation for the behavour of its girls. There hasn't been so much as an explanatory letter sent home to parents due to the serious nature of what has been happening. This is a school with seven to eight applications for every place so it isn't as if vacated places couldn't be filled.

In short, girls are more concerned about the latest scandal than learning as well as being very wary about what will happen next. Surely an exclusion or two would benefit learning, benefit the school's reputation and send a message into the local community that if girls can't behave they will not be staying. Surely proper disciplinary action woudl also be supportive of the staff and the fact that they need support to do their job properly in a civilised environment.

Are the governor's accountable for the head's lack of action and should they be exerting more influence? What will happen if someone ends up being assaulted because this bunch of unmanageable pre teens have been allowed to rule unchecked?

just as, lets be honest, a load of crap spouted on here about state schools.

Your experience clearly differs from mine (and really says nothing more than we have different views on what "modest" means).

I work in the City, and the graduate entrants are mostly privately educated and to many people would be consider "polite, modest and thoughtful" - actually, I agree they are. However, they do also carry about them an air of entitlement and thus, which I think is what NobelGiraffe was reacting to, they do walk about "feeling that the world owes them...." as per pastoralademia.

But hey, lets not hijack the thread on this tangent shall we?

sparklersmum I am shocked by the attitude of the teachers. I don't understand how you disregard the right of the majority to learn at the expense of the few who will not behave and I say will not rather than cannot because there is a clear distinction.

Coming to this late, but I don't really see how this comment by the OP is consistent with what most of the teachers were saying. None of them said that the majority should not learn; only that the OP cannot know the full picture and that there is likely to be much more about the situation that she does not know - that is blindingly obvious to me. Confidentiality is not a cloak for "we don't know what we are doing" it really is a question of privacy. If a 12 yr old girl ran away with a 16 yr old, should the OP really be given the full picture as to what is being done? Really?

Even those teachers that say that there is much bad behaviour (and not all do) don't to my eyes seem to condone it. They explain it and they try and put in context (what is society supposed to do with these kids). No-one disagrees that the majority should be able to study in peace. The disagreement seems to be that there should be automatic exclusions of children for bad behaviour (as presumably practiced by the private sector) compared to some attempt to manage the child out of that behaviour.

I am a governor at my DCs school and exclusion is a last resort (one in 20 years) but despite that the behaviour is generally exemplary. There are challenges for the staff but they do meet them. The private sector can if it wants write off troubled children, but the state sector should not do so (otherwise what happens to the ever increasing underclass).

noblegiraffe - that is certainly not my experience, or anyone I know (booting out for poor exam results).

The 'air of entitlement' is probably a mix of confidence and an air of being happy in their own skin, which a good experience of education (be it state or private) can give to anyone.

You misunderstood what I meant by 'might mess up their exam results', Furminator. I was talking about the school's exam results, not that of the individual student.

So if a student is displaying behaviour which might affect the school's exam results, the private school can just kick them out, terminate their contract etc. However a state school can't, they have to follow a strict procedure that even then might be overturned on appeal. Then there is a financial penalty. And where do the excluded kids go? To another state school, most likely.

[sigh] A private school also has to follow a strict procedure. The difference is, I believe, that the strict procedure is outlined in full in the terms and conditions, so is completely transparent and accepted by the parents/child before they sign on the dotted line. Of course, it will involve leeway on the school's side if they think it is needed. Expulsion at private school (which is an absolute last resort and the only reason I have seen it enforced was for drugs (non negotiable) and vandalism in the local town) isn't just to keep the exam results up, it is there to ensure that the morale of the school isn't affected plus the morale and wellbeing of the other pupils. Whether that is a business decision or not isn't really important because it works.

I don't doubt they also have to follow a procedure but you've got to be kidding if you think it is as hard to expel from a private school as it is from a state school.

Furminator
The difference is, I believe, that the strict procedure is outlined in full in the terms and conditions, so is completely transparent

[sigh]

At the school of the governor at which I am a governor (and I imagine all other state schools) has a completely transparent expulsion procedure also. Its just rarely used because of the inclusive ethos rather than only the best ethos. Bad behaviour is managed effectively.

They too are completely accepted by the parents (they have no choice).

accepted by the parents/child before they sign on the dotted line

And I would really like to see which parent at an indie decided not to choose an indie because they didn't like the Ts and Cs?

Agree with NobelGiraffe

Scuse typos, should have previewed! But you know what I mean.

I don't doubt bad behaviour is managed effectively at your school TWOTB, but I don't think the OP thinks it is at hers (hence the OP)?

Did you realise that not all private schools are selective - I just wonder because people keep saying that private schools have an 'only the best' ethos and kick out pupils in danger of not getting exam results? If that really was the case my d1 wouldn't last 5 minutes at the school she is at !

sparklersmum Tue 15-Nov-11 11:47:48

"When I was at school in the 70's children must have been abused and must have suffered at home - looking back I can imagine which children were affected. But teachers set boundaries and expected decent behaviour. There were consequences and everybody knew what they were and when they had been implemented."

When I was at school in the 70s my parents (who were teachers abroad) used to listen with horror and ill concealed smugness at the stories from British colleagues and the British press about the breakdown of discipline in British schools.

Ever read A Kestrel for a Knave? That was written by an ex- teacher about a 70s comprehensive. I don't think he was looking into the future: he was describing what he saw at the time.

Of course such schools were not the the norm then, but they did exist. They exist now, but I would need to see some evidence before I accepted that they are the norm.

I thought schools and parents worked together these days. Teachers will always defend their backs. (Ditto other professions) The cynical geezer in Waterloo Road needs looking at. And the Head has eyes which suggests he has escaped custody.

Furminator: Did you realise that not all private schools are selective - I just wonder because people keep saying that private schools have an 'only the best' ethos and kick out pupils in danger of not getting exam results? If that really was the case my d1 wouldn't last 5 minutes at the school she is at !

Yes - I do. I don't mean by best however that they are necessarily academic. Whatever the ethos of a particular school, the indie can always weed out those not sport, nor musical, nor well-behaved.

And in relation to the OP not considering behaviour is effectively managed at her school, yes you are right. But the point has been made repeatedly here that she doesn't really know what is going on behind the scenes. (Granted of course her suppositions may be right and nothing may be going on.)

It is not - quite right IMO - correct to simply go through an " exclusion or two" to improve behaviour. Yes exclusions (fixed term or permanent have a place), but it is not for the parents of other children to clamour or instigate for these things.

In fact, an exclusion panel may well have taken place - these things are confidential. Governing bodies always have at the end of their agenda "Confidential Business" where actions in relation to exclusions (and disciplining staff) are discussed when they come up - but for obvious reasons its not really a matter for the wider community and these things are not publicised.

As made clear above the OP should raise issues with the school when it affects other students. If it affects the OP's DD then she should (as she has been advised to do above and (good for her) she seems to be doing) raise concerns about her DD's educational impact of behaviour with the authorities.

Several of my acquaintance have moved heaven and earth to get their children into a heavily oversubscribed 'outstanding' local CofE school, but have been disappointed to discover that there is just as much bullying and disruptive behaviour in this school as they would find anywhere else. The CofE itself has protested against the prevailing image of its schools as 'safe places for nice Christians', which appears to be what the OP expects for her child. Hurrah for a school which in the face of such educational NIMBYism is clearly striving to provide a supportive and inclusive ethos for sometimes troubled children.